AAR - PBEM Game 2 (The FIRST public AAR)

[Hanal]

AAR's of this type are the best form of advertising a company can have.....if this doesn't wet a person's appetite for this game then I do not know what would!

[VI66_slith]

...anyone still feel the need to compare this game to Axis & Allies?

The only resemblance that I see is a colorful map and as far as that goes the GGWaW map looks superior. You guys have also stated that the map isn't even done yet though, correct?

[Becket]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
(BTW I thought "beaker" is the thingie on top of babies' bottles that looks like pacifier, rubber thing with small hole in the middle to help them suck the juice or milk or whatever is inside?)

Uh. That's called a nipple, O. It worries me to no end that you didn't know that.

In any event, tovarisch, thanks for all the information -- the research aspect seems like a game in and of itself! I am, however, troubled that your command of the Rodina's tank development has, as of yet, failed to yield an AFV faster and more deadly that Adolf's basic panzers.

[a19999577]

As a Latin American historian, I feel like I should make my voice heard about the territorial divisions in Latin America. I hadn't been able to make it out very well in previous screenshots, but with Oleg's screenshot of the 'neutral' territories it became quite evident that some of the territories are ahistorically distributed.

Now, surely this is just a game and Latin America won't see combat in 95% of games played, but I'd think it'd be worth adjusting. I also understand that certain territories must be joined together to make the game playable.

Firstly, I'll proceed to argue why some of the unions in the game are inconvenient.

Peru-Ecuador-Colombia: Peru and Ecuador had a war in 1941. Hardly seems to make sense having them in the same territory.

Argentina-Bolivia-Paraguay-Uruguay: Bolivia and Paraguay had an extraordinarily fierce (by Latin American standards) war in 1932-1935, and went on to have a hostile peace. Doesn't look like a likely union either.

So, I'd like to propose the following territories:

"Colombia": joining current-day Ecuador, Colombia and Venezuela. This would represent the Spanish Imperial Viceroyalty of New Granada (separated from the Viceroyalty of Peru in the 18th century), the Republic of Great Colombia in the first half of the 19th century and the common history and economic ties that bind them after that (see the almost identical flags they have?)

"Peru-Bolivia": joining current-day Peru and Bolivia. This represents the latter day Viceroyalty of Peru (after parts of it were separated to form new Viceroyalties in the 18th century), the Peru-Bolivia Confederacy of the first half of the 19th century, the Peru-Bolivia alliance of the second half of the 19th century and Bolivia's commercial dependence on Peru after it lost its sea ports to Chile in the war of 1879-1884. After all, Peru was known as "Lower Peru" and Bolivia as "Upper Peru". Anyone who has visited them can identify their common culture.

"Chile": Enough said.

"Argentina": Joining current-day Paraguay, Argentina and Uruguay. This would represent the late 18th century Viceroyalty of the River Plate created by separating the area from the Viceroyalty of Peru. The game already does this, but including Bolivia. Uruguay and Argentina are quite similar in culture and tastes (Uruguay was sort of established as a 'buffer state' between Argentina and Brazil). Paraguay is still linked to the River Plate economy.

"Brazil": Enough said.


Looking at it in game terms, it doesn't seem to change things much. The "Colombia" I propose would still have access to the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. Now, in the extremely unlikely event that combat occurs in South America, I believe developers should also consider placing untransitable 'buffer' territories, such as the ones I've seen in Africa, the Himalayas and Australia. A modern, world war 2 army simply would not be able to strike from, say, the Peruvian Andes, through the Amazon jungle and into Brazil. Some transport would be possible by the Amazon River, but since this has been curtailed in Africa (Nile) it probably should in South America as well. There should be buffers between "Peru-Bolivia" and "Brazil" as well as between "Colombia" and "Brazil". The rest is ok.

Cheers.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Becket

Uh. That's called a nipple, O. It worries me to no end that you didn't know that.

In any event, tovarisch, thanks for all the information -- the research aspect seems like a game in and of itself! I am, however, troubled that your command of the Rodina's tank development has, as of yet, failed to yield an AFV faster and more deadly that Adolf's basic panzers.

The only nipples I know of are the ones on the pages of Playboy (Kremlin Edition) [8D] As for Rodina's tank development... I guess we'll see whether swarms of BT-7s can stop handful of Panthers [:D] Noooo, just kidding, it's not that bad...

Now question is whether "Adolf's basic panzers" should be given any advantage right at the start? As we know Russians had T-34/41 and KV-1 right at the start of hostilities, outmatching practically anything Germans had at the moment. But Russians failed in operational and tactical deployment of their AFVs so some advantage for the Germans is probably warranted. I guess we'll see during the playtests...

O.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: a19999577

As a Latin American historian, I feel like I should make my voice heard about the territorial divisions in Latin America. I hadn't been able to make it out very well in previous screenshots, but with Oleg's screenshot of the 'neutral' territories it became quite evident that some of the territories are ahistorically distributed.

You are correct in your assumptions as to what countries have been "amalgamated", and that is all I can say. For the sake of completeness, I would support your wish and will repost it on the dev board.

But frankly, not 95%, but rather 99% of games won't see anything happening down there. WAW is different from other semi-similar games (HOI comes to mind) where you could do all sorts of ridicoulous and non historical stuff. Like, Colombian Navy rules the North Sea, or Lithuanian subs battling for the domination of the Atlantic with Brazilian DDs (I've seen such things in HOI!). Not to mention Croatia spanning from Adriatic to the Caspian Sea [8D]

It is my opinion, drawn from admittedly still limited experience with the game, that WAW simply does not allow for such... perversions to occur. That's why I doubt anything will ever happen in South America in any "serious" game of WAW. Most probably developers shared this view and simplified things there.

On the other hand, once the game goes public I don't doubt many players will find "creative" (not to say "gamey") strategies no one now can think of [:D]

O.

[a19999577]

Thank you very much Oleg!

[SeaMonkey]

For accuracy sake, the "thingie" is indeed a flask, specifically an erlenmeyer flask. There are other types of flasks, volumetric, boiling, etc. all with different shapes and uses. A beaker is a round cylindrical shaped glass with a pour spout and there are different types of beakers also, to perform different types of tasks. And no these items do not produce war machines, but they do produce the materials that build them (BASF commercial). They are also useful in the formulation of extreme degrees of explosives and materials that negate the effects of explosives, ie. kevlar.

[Hanal]

I have been wondering about the ahistorical aspects of this game and if we would see HOI "alternaverses"...I'm glad this is not the case...however this does beg the question: Will it be "fun" and a challenge to play China?....based on the force pools I have seen, and the victory conditions, I wonder if China has a chance to win in a 5 player game or even when playing agianst the AI?

[SeaMonkey]

Agreed JP, been wondering if the UK wouldn't be a better choice for #5. The historically correct perspective would be for the USA to run China.

[neuromancer]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
OK, final post in this "chapter" on research. Lotsa "flasks" or "beakers" on this one

[:D]

Either works.

(BTW I thought "beaker" is the thingie on top of babies' bottles that looks like pacifier, rubber thing with small hole in the middle to help them suck the juice or milk or whatever is inside?)

I've always known of that as simply a nipple. But baby stuff isn't my forte.


The thing to remember is that the US has a tendency to call things one thing, the UK has a tendency to call them another, and Canada, we get a mish-mash of both sides. It even varies from region to region.

A good example, napkins. In North America, napkins are what you put in your lap or on your shirt to keep your clothes clean while eating, and then wipe your mouth and hands when you are done. In the UK - IIRC - napkins are what you put on a baby's bottom! And just to confuse the issue, in Canada (not sure about the US) a Sanitary Napkin is an old and rather formal term for some feminine hypgene products!

There are lots of other examples.

BTW: Beaker was also the name of the assistant to the mad scientist on the Muppet Show (Muppet Labs).

[neuromancer]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
The only nipples I know of are the ones on the pages of Playboy (Kremlin Edition) [8D]

Same basic (intended) function. Same name.

Now question is whether "Adolf's basic panzers" should be given any advantage right at the start? As we know Russians had T-34/41 and KV-1 right at the start of hostilities, outmatching practically anything Germans had at the moment. But Russians failed in operational and tactical deployment of their AFVs so some advantage for the Germans is probably warranted. I guess we'll see during the playtests...

Great tanks. Lousy tankers.

Basically I would agree, the issue is not hardware, the issue is training, tactics, and doctrine (which until late 42 or 43, sucked).

[neuromancer]

For accuracy sake, the "thingie" is indeed a flask, specifically an erlenmeyer flask

Well, there we go.

Agreed JP, been wondering if the UK wouldn't be a better choice for #5. The historically correct perspective would be for the USA to run China.

That would make more sense. Possibly allowing for the US and UK to be controlled by the human in single player games.

[Joel Billings]

For a bunch of game mechanic reasons I don't want to bother with explaining, we just can't have China incorporated into another player. Chinese troops were not the same as British or American, while the technological level of British and American troops were much more on par and the British and Americans did fight in combined armies. We knew everyone would ask for separate British but it ain't going to happen. As for the Chinese, if we can arrange it, I liked the idea of putting China between Russia and WA in the turn order so either player could conveniently play China in a PBEM game. I don't expect many 5 player games, but 4 works out well enough. Victory is alliance based, so China does not win on its own. If the Allies win, China wins, if the Allies lose, China loses.

As for South America, I don't believe in 100 games I will see more than 1 unit ever in South America. Although I can't argue with your logic and historical accuracy, it would be too difficult at this point to change the map. Funny that the artist that did the map lives in Uruguay. But don't blame him, he just did the art, I did the layout of the regions, so you can blame me.

[Oleg Mastruko]

Uruguay is on the map as separate entity (further south of the area visible on screenshot above), so obviously graphic guy managed to sneak his country into the game

I don't think anyone will ever notice this while laying out his strategic plans for subjugation of the world though.

Oleg

[Oleg Mastruko]

Here's another cool feature. It's pure eye candy, nothing deep in it but nice to look at. [8D]

Victory screen/mini world map we've already posted, but this screen is actually animated. VCR controls visible on top of the screen are used to "replay" the WW2 as animated minimap showing your conquests (or demises) in practical and enjoyable way.

Here I made animated GIF showing how it looks when replayed. What you see is animation of Axis conquests in opening 4-5 turns of our ongoing PBEM. I don't know whether it will play in your browser, but you can try downloading the file separately.

Oleg

[Hanal]

I was wondering why the hell those VCR controls were up there!.....[:D]

[Hanal]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

For a bunch of game mechanic reasons I don't want to bother with explaining, we just can't have China incorporated into another player. Chinese troops were not the same as British or American, while the technological level of British and American troops were much more on par and the British and Americans did fight in combined armies. We knew everyone would ask for separate British but it ain't going to happen. As for the Chinese, if we can arrange it, I liked the idea of putting China between Russia and WA in the turn order so either player could conveniently play China in a PBEM game. I don't expect many 5 player games, but 4 works out well enough. Victory is alliance based, so China does not win on its own. If the Allies win, China wins, if the Allies lose, China loses.

As for South America, I don't believe in 100 games I will see more than 1 unit ever in South America. Although I can't argue with your logic and historical accuracy, it would be too difficult at this point to change the map. Funny that the artist that did the map lives in Uruguay. But don't blame him, he just did the art, I did the layout of the regions, so you can blame me.

So in other words, playing China is like being the last guy picked on a stick ball team.... you may go 0 for 7, but your team wins 13 to 2!....[:)]

And by the way, my comment was not intended to denigrate the Chinese war effort during the Japanese invasion, for as everyone knows, they suffered great hardships and did have achievements....my comment is only directed at the gameplay of WaW....

[a19999577]

Uruguay as a separate entity? Mindboggling! [&:]

It seems akin to Spain and France being amalgamated while Portugal is set up as a separate entity... [being that Portugal and Spain are the more 'normal' union...]

[Iñaki Harrizabalagatar]

I wonder if there will be a redeployment option before playing first turn, so that players don´t get a "winning aperture" or some exploit like Axis always taking Egypt the first turn