Cappaigns and scenarios?

[Michael T]

Having people change things willy nilly for their own games v the AI may be a good thing. But for PBEM games and making sensible comparisons of performance against historical events it is very important that the stock scenario's are close to balanced and 'official' updates improve any issues. I for one don't wish to see a plethora of PBEM games being played all with different settings. So I really hope the designer is putting in great efforts for the stock games to be the most historical and balanced versions he can make.

[welk]

It's difficult to content all players :
If he does not build editor for the game, some players say : "oh, no editor in this game ? What a bad thing"
Ih he does, other players say : "Oh, I play multi, I don't need editor"

I think the dev has intention to work in the 2 directions : good scenarios for multi and detailled/complete editor for players who want change vanilla parameters

[Zovs]

Well I think your missing the point. It’s one thing to be able to create mods and modify things but for competitive pbem once a game has started between two players all those variables should be locked down with no way to change the agreed upon options. All war games usually have this feature.

Also all the stock scenarios should be play tested and set for both historical accuracy and play balance.

Setting the French to never surrender would be as ludicrous as setting all the Germans to fantasy SS elite units.

[lecrop]

But somewhere have they said that you can change the parameters of a scenario unilaterally once you have started a pbem game?

I have not read that in any post...

[welk]

ORIGINAL: Zovs

Well I think your missing the point. It’s one thing to be able to create mods and modify things but for competitive pbem once a game has started between two players all those variables should be locked down with no way to change the agreed upon options. All war games usually have this feature.

Also all the stock scenarios should be play tested and set for both historical accuracy and play balance.

Setting the French to never surrender would be as ludicrous as setting all the Germans to fantasy SS elite units.

I don't play wargames to win games as "competition", it seems to me a "no sense" and to win or to lost has for me no any importance if I did enjoy with strategic questions during game (during my wargamer carreer, I did always avoid to play with this kind of players because they are always a litle bit pernickety and to play with them seems to me tedious). But I see what you means f for this matter I think WP will probably come like other computer wargames, with a "no cheat" multi system (each player must use the same settings)

[welk]

ORIGINAL: lecrop

But somewhere have they said that you can change the parameters of a scenario unilaterally once you have started a pbem game?

I have not read that in any post...

I agree, and I think the game will not allow that sort of "multi- cheat"

Besides, what is the point of cheating in a wargame? Players has to be heavely stupid to do that. When I say that modifications in editor may be interessant, it's to create strategic what if ? (what happen,s if France do not surrender ? What happens if surrending level of Italy is less than the vanilla setting ?, etc)

[wosung]

ORIGINAL: Meteor2

And why should a country never surrender?

Should the Soviet Union surrender?

[welk]

In editor, you may create a what if ? What would be happens with a different german politic concerning Russian peoples (in particular in Ukrainia), and if Germans had favorized independant and/or anti soviet movements ? In this case, you may set a "break moral point" to URSS, considering that when this point is reached, the soviet regime collapses and Urss surrenders, with installation of "German satellites regimes" in Moscow and Kiev

[Meteor2]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Having people change things willy nilly for their own games v the AI may be a good thing. But for PBEM games and making sensible comparisons of performance against historical events it is very important that the stock scenario's are close to balanced and 'official' updates improve any issues. I for one don't wish to see a plethora of PBEM games being played all with different settings. So I really hope the designer is putting in great efforts for the stock games to be the most historical and balanced versions he can make.

Right!
The original scenarios / campaigns should be as "accurate" and historical as possible.
And yes, every Country should have a certain Moral level for surrender.
And, by the way, is surrender a Black/white decision (as in nearly every WW2 sim), or is a negotiated peace possible?
E. g. Italy leaving the axis in 1943 due to heavy losses in Russia and the loss of the colonies in NA.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: wosung
Should the Soviet Union surrender?

This is an excellent question and very relevant for wargames like this.

While I for one doubt--with the benefit of hindsight--that the USSR would have surrendered under almost any circumstances, many at the time (certainly the Germans) seem to believe otherwise.

Since this belief inevitably affected their strategies, etc. it would seem odd to have a WWII game in which there is no chance that the USSR will surrender.

[Simulacra53]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: wosung
Should the Soviet Union surrender?

This is an excellent question and very relevant for wargames like this.

While I for one doubt--with the benefit of hindsight--that the USSR would have surrendered under almost any circumstances, many at the time (certainly the Germans) seem to believe otherwise.

Since this belief inevitably affected their strategies, etc. it would seem odd to have a WWII game in which there is no chance that the USSR will surrender.

Although I predominantly “studied” the German side of WW1 and 2, based on what I have read I agree. There may have been moments in 1941 that Soviet morale was faltering and the government probably ready to accept some settlement that would favor the Germans - similar to WW1 - but as soon as it was clear that very survival of Russia was at stake, on top of the ideological element of communism versus fascism, it was going to be a fight to the death. The Soviet union was much stronger in terms of morale than Imperial Russia. Probably no state would have survived to onslaught that the Soviet Union had to endure and probably no other system than Communism could sustain such losses, not even Fascism/Nazism, certainly not any liberal democracy. The Germans for all their self confidence simply could not break the Soviets and they literally spent themselves trying until they ran out of steam.

Everyone should realize that at the start of Barbarossa the Wehrmacht had to literally scrape the bottom of the barrel and as soon as spares started to run out, it quickly lost offensive power.

But back to your second remark.
It is not surprising that many expected the Soviets to collapse.
1. Russia lost the Russo-Japanese war
2. The nature of the Russian collapse in WW1
3. Soviet support failed to save Republican Spain
4. The Soviets did not win the Winter war against Finland
5. France was defeated so fast that the Wehrmacht thought itself invincible (note, not meant as anti-French criticism - the BEF was also defeated and forced to retreat aka evacuate).

Who can blame Germans for believing in their military strength and prowess?

However as has been said, Russians are never as strong nor as weak as they seem.
The message seems clear, never underestimate Russia.

[AlbertN]

To an extent what of above is correct.

Soviet troopers rapidly stopped to surrender as soon as it was clear nasty fate was waiting for them on surrender.
That helped a lot in steadying their defences and morale, going down to the individual level of soldier at the frontline that makes the decision of surrendering about his life and death. If one is to surrender and probably you're to get killed anyhow or pratically be enslaved, you're going to fight til the last bullet.

On political level the previous purges that led the Red Army to be as inefficient, also safekept a political unity of the nation through the harsh times.

On German's side - in '42 in fact Fall Blau was a localized offensive (A 'large' localization, sure, definitely a third smaller than Barbarossa, and definitely larger than '43 Zitadelle) - to have understand how German's offensive power was indeed attrited down.

From gameplay perspective though - whereas the Germans are more successful than they were historically - Soviet surrender (coup? Stalin dethroned?) should be part of the game.

[juntoalmar]

I have asked somewhere else, but I haven't found the answer yet. Will there be a Asian scenarios and Global campaign (with the whole world)?

I can only see references to Europe scenarios.

[AlvaroSousa]

To clear this up the French do surrender.

Most countries surrender when all their production and moral resources are taken. These are urban areas.

France is special because you need a certain number of these locations for France to offer a negotiated peace. A player can turn down this offer and France will fight on from the colonies.

The USSR doesn't surrender but if the Germans take everything they are basically neutered.

Great Britain doesn't surrender because they never would. They keep fighting from colonies.

One note to the countries is that they do lose manpower, production, and oil as more territory is taken. So say England is completely taken over their forces still remain but they have no manpower being created. All they have is what is in their pool and their minor countries.

[Plainian]

ORIGINAL: fuzzypup
So say England is completely taken over their forces still remain but they have no manpower being created. All they have is what is in their pool and their minor countries.

Sounds good but remember....

England = the British mainland (Northern Ireland?)
Minor countries = the British colonies

Apologies for being pedantic.

[Zovs]

A English fellow I once played with said something to the effect of “there is the English or Great Britain and then the Commonwealth and all the rest”.

[Plainian]

Well British history tends to be Anglocentric written from the English point of view, but the mainland and of course Northern Ireland is made up of 3 other representative Nationalities.

I'm pretty confident given the depth of knowledge fuzzypup has in Strategic games he knows this and it will be written as Britain/British Isles/Colonies etc in the rules and manual.

By the way are you a regular consimworlder and boardgamer?

[AlvaroSousa]

I am neither. I am playing a WIF game currently. But my day is usually filled with work about 12 hours a day. Either family or WarPlan. So not much time for fun. Haven't played poker in a long time due to WarPlan.