GGWAW too offensive game?

[keyser soze]

Somewhere on this forum Oleg have said if you want to win you must constantly attack. I hope that game developers will fix that and find some balance between too offensive and too defensive game. Any news?

[elmo3]

You might at least wait until the game is published and form your own opinion before asking 2by3 to fix it. [8|]

[Joel Billings]

Although defenders get a small bonus, and it costs many more supplies to attack than to defend, as it real life, attacks and counterattacks are the way to victory. Acting purely defensively gets you nowhere as you allow the enemy to mass and pick their spots. Because of the added supply cost to the attacker, you must gain a good advantage to make your attack worthwhile, and by attacking, you set up your opponent to counter-attack, however, just sitting on defense won't get you anywhere in the long run.

[Og]

Joel;

I think from reading the AARs that people are noticing regions changing hands too often. Moscow changes hands 4 times in some games, and Northern Itally flips around like a fish. I understand that WWII was mobile but can't you model victories without the consequence being the region changing hands so often? Couldn't you allow 2 states to each region, a "half taken" state would force the defensive player to react without losing the region and having the industry completely destroyed. Perhaps in such a state he can't use the resources and Industry, but they aren't dammaged 2.

I understand that offense takes lots of supply, so perhaps reinforcing such a "half-taken" place (just moving more forces in) would also require extra supply.

Then you won't have northern Italy changing hands 4 and 5 times a game, rather it will fall into contested status 3 or 4 times and then be taken for real.

yours
Og

[Joel Billings]

ORIGINAL: Og

Joel;

I think from reading the AARs that people are noticing regions changing hands too often. Moscow changes hands 4 times in some games, and Northern Itally flips around like a fish. I understand that WWII was mobile but can't you model victories without the consequence being the region changing hands so often? Couldn't you allow 2 states to each region, a "half taken" state would force the defensive player to react without losing the region and having the industry completely destroyed. Perhaps in such a state he can't use the resources and Industry, but they aren't dammaged 2.

I understand that offense takes lots of supply, so perhaps reinforcing such a "half-taken" place (just moving more forces in) would also require extra supply.

Then you won't have northern Italy changing hands 4 and 5 times a game, rather it will fall into contested status 3 or 4 times and then be taken for real.

yours
Og

Sorry, but what you're asking for would be a huge change in the game (and the display). I'm not convinced it would be any better than the current system. It is the exception rather than the rule to see areas change hands that many times (at least important ones). In Russia, areas did change hands with various offensives and counter-offensives and this happens in the game as well. I really don't think you'll think much of it if you play the game.

[keyser soze]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Although defenders get a small bonus, and it costs many more supplies to attack than to defend, as it real life, attacks and counterattacks are the way to victory. Acting purely defensively gets you nowhere as you allow the enemy to mass and pick their spots. Because of the added supply cost to the attacker, you must gain a good advantage to make your attack worthwhile, and by attacking, you set up your opponent to counter-attack, however, just sitting on defense won't get you anywhere in the long run.

I agree, of course. It will be absolutely stupid that player can win without any attacks. But Og is right – I have seen regions that changed hands too often. In USSR this is OK (it is even historically correct) but in Italy or France? I am not against offensive game type but if player do not have chance to defend any regions, game is obviously unbalanced, especially for PBEM. [:-]

[keyser soze]

ORIGINAL: elmo3

You might at least wait until the game is published and form your own opinion before asking 2by3 to fix it. [8|]

I don’t understand your logic. To my opinion it will be best for the game that we fix (correct) everything what is wrong BEFORE game is published. [8|]

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: keyser soze

ORIGINAL: elmo3

You might at least wait until the game is published and form your own opinion before asking 2by3 to fix it. [8|]

I don’t understand your logic. To my opinion it will be best for the game that we fix (correct) everything what is wrong BEFORE game is published. [8|]

Bugs should be fixed before release of course. But Joel just said he doens't see a big problem and certainly not a bug. That's good enough for me since I don't have the game yet. If I buy it and play it and disagree then I'll voice my opinion.

How can you be of the opinion that something needs to be fixed when you haven't even played the game? My point was that you are basing your opinion on hearsay.

Edited for spelling.

[keyser soze]

ORIGINAL: elmo3

ORIGINAL: keyser soze

ORIGINAL: elmo3

You might at least wait until the game is published and form your own opinion before asking 2by3 to fix it. [8|]

I don’t understand your logic. To my opinion it will be best for the game that we fix (correct) everything what is wrong BEFORE game is published. [8|]

Bugs should be fixed before release of course. But Joel just said he doens't see a big problem and certainly not a bug. That's good enough for me since I don't have the game yet. If I buy it and play it and disagree then I'll voice my opinion.

How can you be of the opinion that something needs to be fixed when you haven't even played the game? My point was that you are basing your opinion on heresay.

It is not based on heresay, it is based on Oleg statement. Oleg is official GGWAW game test player so there is no reason not to believe him.

[Oleg Mastruko]

It's a design decision. By definition, design decisions are not bugs.

I don't see this as problem, unless constant attacking is against your style of play. I said that I personally came to prefer more "naval oriented" sides in this game, but that has nothing to do with "bugs", "fixing" etc. There are plenty of beta testers quite happy to play SU and/or Germany (as examples of land-oriented sides in the game).

Taking and retaking North Italy and such.... yes it will happen a LOT initially, in newbie games. As you get experienced with this game system, you'll learn to take care to prevent this from happening, by garrisoning your rear areas etc.

BTW, although we are all very quiet lately on this board, GGWAW development is going on fine. Recently implemented are various "multimedia" contents: movies, sounds, animations, and in my opinion they are of the very high quality and help the game atmosphere a lot.

O.

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: keyser soze

It is not based on heresay, it is based on Oleg statement...

That pretty much defines hearsay. I rest my case. [:)]

[pzgndr]

Taking and retaking North Italy and such.... yes it will happen a LOT initially, in newbie games.

FWIW, in Third Reich with quarterly turns one often sees hard-fought-for hexes in France and Italy retaken by Axis with the free attrition option, even with experienced players. So fighting again to retake ground should not be a surprise since it represents local attacks, counter-attacks, etc. It just "looks" unrealistic in large scale games with 50-mile hexes or larger provinces like in GGWAW, but that's just an effect of the game mechanics.

One should not scrutinize too closely what happens in a specific hex/region during a single turn, in any game. Rather one should consider the bigger picture and what happens over several turns. Is the overall situation changing in a historical manner or not? In this regard Third Reich played well despite its abstractions, and I expect GGWAW will also.